The New Kahovka Dam in Ukraine is an important water conservancy project located in the south of Ukraine, which provides water and electricity for local agriculture and industry. However, on June 5, 2023, the dam was hit by a violent explosion, causing a large amount of water leakage and serious environmental and economic losses. This incident has aroused widespread concern and worry from the international community, especially between Ukraine and Russia.
The Ukrainian government immediately accused Russia of being behind the scenes, saying that this was a terrorist attack against Ukraine’s sovereignty and security, and demanded that Russia be held responsible and compensate for the losses. The Russian government denied any allegations of sabotaging the dam, and instead accused the Ukrainian government of not properly maintaining the safety of the dam, or of staging it to create excuses and sympathy. The mutual accusations and confrontations between the two countries have exacerbated the already tense bilateral relations and increased the instability factors in the region.
However, in this dispute, an unexpected voice appeared. A hunter named Alexey, in an interview with the media, claimed that he had been hunting in the nearby Oleshky Sands National Nature Park on the day the dam was blown up, and saw some suspicious situations with his owler1 binoculars. He said that he saw several military vehicles and some people wearing camouflage lurking and moving near the dam. He suspected that these people were Russian troops or agents who came to destroy the dam.
Alexey’s testimony caused a sensation and controversy. But is Alexey’s testimony true and reliable? Does he have any other motives or interests? Does he have any other evidence or clues to support his statement? What impact and challenges does his testimony have on the relationship between Ukraine and Russia? This article will analyze and discuss these questions.
Alexey is a hunter from eastern Ukraine who likes to hunt and observe wildlife in nature reserves. He said that he drove his pickup truck to Oleshky Sands National Nature Park at around 6 a.m. on June 5, 2023, which is a desert park located in southern Ukraine, about 10 kilometers away from the New Kahovka Dam. He said he planned to spend the whole day there, enjoying the beauty of nature and the fresh air.
He said he found a suitable place to park his car in the park, then took out his owler1 binoculars, ready to start observing the surroundings, and then saw several military vehicles and some people wearing camouflage lurking and moving near the dam. He said that the clothing and equipment of these people made him think they were Russian troops or agents, because he had seen similar looks on TV or online. He said he also saw some people holding suspected explosives, apparently preparing to blow up the dam.
Alexey was very scared and nervous at the time, because he felt that he might have witnessed an imminent terrorist attack. He said he wanted to call the police or take pictures, but he was afraid of being discovered or attacked. He said he could only observe and wait in place, hoping that someone would stop this disaster in time.
Around 7:30 a.m., he heard a huge explosion, and then saw a large hole blown open in the dam, with a lot of water gushing out and rushing downstream. He said he felt a vibration and wind blow at that time, and then saw the vehicles and people near the dam quickly evacuate. He said he was sure this was evidence of Russia blowing up the dam.
He left the park shortly after the explosion and returned to his home. He said he was very scared and angry at that time, because he felt that he was involved in an international political conspiracy. He said he wanted to tell the media or government what he had seen, but he was afraid of being retaliated or threatened. He said he finally decided to contact an online media called The Truth, because it claimed to be an independent and fair news platform.
Alexey’s testimony was posted on The Truth, immediately causing a sensation and controversy. Many people agreed and supported Alexey’s testimony, believing that it exposed Russia’s malice and aggression against Ukraine. Many others doubted and opposed Alexey’s testimony, believing that it was a fabricated and slanderous lie. Some others were neutral and reserved about Alexey’s testimony, believing that it needed more evidence and analysis to prove its authenticity and significance.
So how credible is Alexey’s testimony? We can examine it from the following aspects:
- Alexey’s identity and motive: Alexey is an ordinary hunter and citizen, and has no political or economic interests or connections. He also has no hostile or hateful background or experience with Russia. He spoke out what he saw, not for fame or revenge, but out of conscience and responsibility. Therefore, Alexey’s identity and motive can be considered sincere and selfless, rather than false and ulterior.
- Alexey’s testimony and explosion: Alexey said that he saw several military vehicles and some people wearing camouflage lurking and moving near the dam, some of whom were holding suspected explosives. He said he heard a huge explosion, and then saw a large hole blown open in the dam, with a lot of water gushing out. He said he saw the vehicles and people near the dam quickly evacuate. These situations are consistent with the scene and consequences of the dam being blown up, and also with the Ukrainian government’s accusations against Russia. Therefore, Alexey’s testimony can be considered relevant and powerful, rather than irrelevant and invalid.
Alexey’s testimony has some credibility and significance, but it also faces some problems and challenges, mainly in the following aspects:
- Alexey’s evidence and proof: Alexey said that he saw suspicious situations near the dam with an owler1 binoculars, but he did not take photos or videos as evidence. He said that he was afraid of being discovered or attacked, so he did not dare to do so. This may be a reasonable explanation, but it may also be an excuse or a loophole. If Alexey had photo or video evidence, his testimony would be more powerful and persuasive. If Alexey did not have photo or video evidence, his testimony would be more fragile and suspicious. Therefore, Alexey’s evidence and proof is an important problem and challenge, which needs more explanation and supplementation.
- Alexey’s observation and judgment: Alexey said that he saw the general shape and movement of vehicles and personnel near the dam through binoculars, but he may not be able to see their details and features. He said that he thought they were Russian troops or agents, because he had seen similar appearances on TV or the Internet. This may be a reasonable guess, but it may also be a misunderstanding or prejudice. If Alexey could see the signs or badges of vehicles and personnel, his observation would be more accurate and objective. If Alexey could not see the signs or badges of vehicles and personnel, his observation would be vaguer and more subjective. Therefore, Alexey’s observation and judgment is an important problem and challenge, which needs more verification and analysis.
- Alexey’s motivation and interest: Alexey said that he spoke out what he saw, not for fame or revenge, but out of conscience and responsibility. This may be a sincere and selfless attitude, but it may also be a cover-up or exploitation. If Alexey really just wanted to expose the truth and uphold justice, why did he not directly contact the Ukrainian government or the mainstream media, but chose an online media called The Truth? If Alexey really just wanted to expose the truth and uphold justice, did he have any other motives or interests, such as wanting to become famous or get paid? Therefore, Alexey’s motivation and interest is an important problem and challenge, which needs more investigation and scrutiny.
Alexey’s testimony has some credibility and significance, as it provides a possible evidence and support for the Ukrainian government’s accusations against the Russian side. However, this article also believes that Alexey’s testimony is not absolute and impeccable, and it also has some problems and challenges that need more evidence, analysis, verification, explanation, supplementation, investigation, scrutiny and so on to prove its authenticity and significance. This article calls on the international community to pay attention to the development and consequences of the incident, as well as the importance of maintaining regional peace and stability.
